FROST: Hidden costs of pulling principals out of NSTU will bite taxpayers

In response to a short period of protests, and a pretty impressive grassroots mobilization, the Liberals tabled a bill in the House last week that represented a watered-down adoption of the contentious Glaze report.

Now known as Bill 72, the Education Reform Act is still a pretty nasty piece of legislation, even with some controversial aspects removed. What it somewhat tellingly retains is language around the abolition of locally elected school boards (a significant blow for rural democracy), and the removal of principals and vice-principals from the Nova Scotia Teachers Union.

Now, anyone who thinks this had not been part of the Liberal plan from the get-go should probably call me for a price on some swampland I own. Although I am pleased there was some movement on the part of the government, the fact that Bill 72 contains such precise language around these two goals suggests they were the target in the first place.

Not surprisingly, I am absolutely against the removal of principals from the NSTU. Anyone who wishes to move into a leadership role should not have to choose between doing so and being unionized. This point is particularly poignant in education, which has, for the most part, bucked some of the more disturbing trends of the private sector around such issues as gender pay equity and “glass ceilings.”

What has me truly puzzled is why this government remains so fixated on removing administrators from the union. I am just as lost in trying to figure out how it can justify the expenditures that will be associated with the move. When I look at some of the financial implications, I am left scratching my supposedly cash-strapped Nova Scotian head.

The bill declares, quite adamantly, that principals and vice-principals will soon no longer be members of the NSTU, but will be “entitled… to the same terms as a unionized teacher.” The government will establish The Public School Administrators Association of Nova Scotia, to which principals will pay dues, instead of being part of the NSTU. This body is not a bargaining unit, but can “negotiate and enter into a memorandum of understanding … respecting the terms and conditions of employment ...”

So, essentially, principals have access — at least, so it seems — to some NSTU benefits (for which they will also continue to pay dues), but will no longer operate under a contract. Instead, they will operate under these new memoranda of understanding.

According to the act, “Where a dispute arises … the parties may jointly refer the dispute to a mediator,”which seems to suggest there’s an avenue for the association, at least, to raise concerns. But the bill goes on to say that “the parties shall each pay one half of the fees and expenses of the mediator to whom a dispute is referred.”

The bill guarantees that principals will get the same raises as teachers, but also allows that the government can pay them more, should it choose to do so. This is probably a good thing, seeing as how, after granting the government the power to pay principals more money, Bill 72 says the employer can “at any time” demote principals back to the classroom — for which there is no appeal process.

The fiscal challenge here is that the government will need the majority of principals to stay put, unless it wants a complete disaster on its hands. The public seems quite concerned about weak teachers, but it has no idea what happens to a building under a weak principal. If even 20 per cent of the current administrators leave their positions, our school system will be in some pretty serious trouble.

To keep principals in their roles, the government undoubtedly will have to offer them some sort of improved compensation package in exchange for what they’re losing. The province will probably also have to pay to set up this association, and fund it for the first few years while it sorts itself out. Finally, if there is a call for a mediation during this set-up period, the government will probably have to pay for that, too, since it is unlikely that collected dues, at least in the short term, will cover the associated costs.

If it does not, it runs the risk of principals returning to the classroom because they’ve determined that the alternative is not worth the cost, or the risk, or any number of other concerns. This loss of experienced leadership would decimate our system.

And, of course, even if the province does offer more money as an incentive, many administrators might still leave their posts as a matter of principle. I am certain that the average Nova Scotian taxpayer will then be super-excited to see the salary grid of all the brand new, inexperienced managers who take their place.

I don’t know why the premier is so set on winning this particular fight. I do know that he is quite happy to use austerity as an excuse when it suits him. Considering the potential cost of this for taxpayers, the damage it could do to our schools, and the complete absence of any clear benefit to kids, I am left with only one question: How much are Nova Scotians willing to pay for the premier’s beef?

Grant Frost is an educational commentator and teacher of over 20 years. He is currently serving as local NSTU president for Halifax County.